I have a friend who occasionally laments over coffee that she "turns the men in her life into women." This got me thinking about modern gender roles in American society. More importantly, it got me nostalgic for column-inspired hate mail.
Now, this particular friend of mine also has a list of criteria for dating longer than Luther's 95 theses, so perhaps she's not the best example for studying the average American as he or she pertains to gender-related behavior and relationships.
For an accurate representation of what par for the gender course would be, I went to the modern-day Oracle of Delphi: Google.com. I came upon an essay written by Kathleen Trigiai, a self-described "fairly typical urban, American, white, middle class, single, heterosexual, 30-something professional woman."
Other than that, all her Web site gave me about her credentials was that she gives
"Toastmasters speeches on feminism."
I knew I had found a winner.
In her rather lengthy critique of John Gray's "Men Are From Mars Women Are From Venus," she summarizes Gray's argument that men value "power, competency, efficiency and achievement," while women value "love, communication, beauty and relationships."
Trigiani sees such generalization as an affront to her self-image as a woman. I don't blame her, but to be honest, I realized that I don't care how she feels about it. In actuality, I began to resent that we are expected to care.
Why do men feel compelled in this modern age to place themselves beneath women as if it were part of some grand humility gesture? I was under the impression that feminism dealt with equal rights for women, not about the prostration of men before the XX alter.
But whose fault is it? Judging at least partially from my coffee friend, women don't want it, and men, I'd imagine, feel exactly the same way.
The blame may lie with both, however, but not in the way one might think.
Ultimately, evolutionary or divinely inspired gender roles - whatever they might be - are no match for the pandering of Hollywood.
Jon Lafayette of CableWorld, an online magazine, tells us from his studies of Nielsen ratings that men watch an average of four hours and 35 minutes of television each day. While that's embarrassingly high, women watch on average five hours and 18 minutes of television every day, which is nearly 17 percent more than men. This is all to say that television programs - the most accessible entertainment medium in the country - are directed toward women.
Why else then would so many shows have an oafish lout of a man married to a "too-good for him" woman?
My question is, do women really want that life? Do they want the oaf? Sure, he's got a lovable Homer Simpson-esque charm and means well, but the systematic over-mollification of our (admittedly) historical chauvinism on a societal level has left us with a culturally reinforced male who is so willing to turn himself into a pi?+/-ata for the object of his affection. Furthermore, he lacks the backbone to be aggressive and dominant when the moment truly requires it.
Many experts call this phenomenon the "feminization of American society." I see it as further evidence that we as a culture are too lazy to decide for ourselves how to interact with each other. We choose instead to take our cue from the "idiot box," a trend that, in fact, is a vicious cycle that will turn both women and men into vegetative, weak-minded whiners who would as soon pander to one another in a way consistent with a network sitcom than exercise honest communication.
